union pacific r. co. v. united states, 99 u.s. 402 (1879)
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
1/32
99 U.S. 402
25 L.Ed. 274
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES.
October Term, 1878
1 APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
2 This is a suit by the Union Pacific Railroad Company to recover compensation
for services rendered to the United States prior to 1874, and during a portion of
that year 1874, and the whole of the year 1875. A counter-claim is set up for
five per cent of the net earnings of the company, under the provision of the
sixth section of the act of July, 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 489), that 'after the said road is
completed, until said bonds and interest are paid, at least five per centum of the
net earnings of said road shall also be annually applied to the payment thereof.'
The United States alleges that the road was completed on the 6th of November,
1869, and that since that time a large amount of net earnings has been realized
by the company, which it has failed to pay or apply to the said bonds. The
company denies this, and alleges that its road was not finished until Oct. 1,
1874, and that it has not realized any net earnings in any year, since either the
6th of November, 1869, or the 1st of October, 1874; and denies that it was its
duty to pay to the United States annually any money whatever, as and for five
per cent upon its net earnings, to be applied in the aforesaid.
3 The Court of Claims decided that the road was completed on the 6th of
November, 1869, and that the company did, after that period, annually realize
net earnings to a large amount, for the six years from Nov. 6, 1869, to Nov. 6,
1875, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $28,052,045.67; and that five
per cent thereof, to wit, the sum of $1,402,602.28, was payable to the
government; whilst one-half of the compensation due for the services rendered
by the company to the government, for the period covered by the petition,
amounted to only $593,627.10; and, therefore, that the government was entitled
to recover from the company the difference between these two sums,
amounting to the sum of $808,975.18. From this judgment the company
appealed.
4 So much of the eighteenth finding by the Court of Claims as is referred to and
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
2/32
A.—EARNINGS.
Nov. 6, 1869, to Nov. 6, 1870, to Nov. 6,1871, to
Nov. 5, 1870. Nov. 5, 1871. Nov. 5, 1872.
Nov. 6, 1872, to Nov. 6, 1873 Nov. 6,1874, to
Nov. 5, 1873. Nov. 5, 1874. Nov. 5, 1875.
commented on in the opinion of the court is as follows:——
5
6
7
8 7. Company freight earnings $482,387.43 $362,414.56 $403,591.90
9 12. Miscellaneous 116,300.14 94,610.20 112,920.09
10
11
12 7. Company freight earnin $465,734.02 $506,698.53 $657,641.92
13 12. Miscellaneous 140,039.31 218,942.15 166.696.94 B.—EXPENDITURES.
14 Nov. 6, 1869, Nov. 6, 1870,
15 to to
16 Nov. 5, 1870. Nov. 5, 1871.
1. Conducting transportation
17 expenses $829,771.15 $671,194.53
18 2. Motive-power expenses 1,778,601.44 1,229,048.51
3. Maintenance of cars
19 expenses 608,622.90 302,225.09
4. Maintenance of way
20 expenses 1,403,090.28 995,683.49
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
3/32
5. General expenses
21 (including taxes) 445,119.88 397,651.07
6. Ferry expenses 54,714.88
7. Deficiency in fuel
22 and material account 75,577.54
8. Legal expenses 85,508.81 48,807.41
9. United State revenue
23 stamps 6,639.32 926.02
10. Salary account 16,335.90 53,522.39
11. Government directors 3,655.30 3,115.00
12. Government
24 commissioners 2,391.15
13. Expense account 26,057.18 24,241.41
14. Telegraph earnings
25 refunded
15. Omaha bridge, expenses
26 of operating
16. Car-service
17. Discount and interest
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
4/32
27 on floating debt 409,668.66 188,136.73
18. Expenses of land and
28 town-lot departments 41,524.47 60,824.89
19. Taxes on lands and
29 town lots 35,778.90 85,105.49
30 20. Interest on first-
31 mortgage bonds 2,015,326.28 1,715,200.96
32 21. Interest on land-
33 grant bonds 553,947.91 601,647.34
22. Interest on income
34 bonds 673,238.41 882,306.95
35 23. Interest on sinking-
36 fund bonds
24. Interest on Omaha
37 bridge bonds
25. Premium on gold to
38 pay coupons 117,569.84
26. Construction of Omaha
39 bridge
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
5/32
27. Expenditures for
40 station building
41 shops, and fixtures,
42 &c, as per statement
43 attached 896,977.03 66,849.73 28. Requirements of
44 sinking-funds for
45 the redemption of
46 funded debts:
Omaha bridge
47 bonds
Sinking-fund
48 mortgage bonds
29. Premium on Omaha
49 bridge bonds
50 redeemed
30. United States
51 interest half
52 transportation
53 accounts charged
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
6/32
Nov. 6, 1872, to Nov. 6, 1973, to
Nov. 6, 1874, to
Nov. 5,1873 Nov. 6, 1874 Nov. 5, 1875
54during the year 324,697.40 527,799.06
55 Total $10,287,954.25 $7,942,755.88 DETAIL OF EXPENDITURES FOR
STATION BUILDINGS, &c., CONSTITUTING ITEM 27 ABOVE.
56 ----------
57 Nov. 6, 1869, to Nov. 6, 1870, to Nov. 6, 1871, to Nov. 6, 1872, to o
58 Nov. 5, 1870. Nov. 5, 1871. Nov. 5, 1872. Nov. 5, 1873. Nov. Nov. 6, 1873, t5,
1874.
59 1. Station buildings $249,384.74 $48,286.40 $119,795.14 $14,580 .81
60 2. Shops and fixtures 40,618.27 94,855.51 106,067.83 2,744.02 $1,718.32 ------
--------
61 3. Equipment 109,933.18 47,598.03 8,380.72 93,213.18
62 4. Government commissioners 91.80 proper to be deducted from 'gross
earnings' in order to arrive at 'net earnings.'
63 1. Tenement-houses and hotels $1,659.96 $21,229.53
64 2. New station-buildings $6,909.98 18,146.77 78,589.57
65 3. Engine-equipment 25,398.69 63,277.70
66 4. Tanks and water-works 734.99 12,450.13
67 5. Car equipment 3,600.00 206,930.36
68 6. Laramie rolling-mills 43,716.01 149,859.30
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
7/32
69 Item 13, 'expense account,' is subject to be reduced by the following amounts in
case such outlays are regarded as not proper to be deducted from 'gross
earnings' in order to arrive at 'net earnings;' viz., In the year, Nov. 6, 1869, to
Nov. 5, 1870, expenses relating to an issue of bonds, $10,339.76; March 13,
1871, cost of a plate for the bridge bonds, $1,500; June 5, 1874, and expense
relating to the issue of sinking-fund bonds, $6,579.10.
70 The disputed expenditures in items 1, 2, 3, and 4 were for new construction.
Item 27 was also for new construction.
71 Item 16 was for the use of the cars of other companies.
72 Items 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 show payments of interest on debts.
73 Items 18 and 19 show payments made on account of the land department of the
company's business.
74 Item 26 shows payments in the construction of the Omaha bridge above the
amounts received from the sale of the mortgage bonds secured by it.
75 Items 28 and 29 show-expenditures made for a sinking-fund for the redemption
of the company's debt.
76 Item 30 shows an assumed payment of a portion of the interest on the
government subsidy bonds by the application to it of half the government
transportation account.
77 Mr. Sidney Bartlett for the appellant.
78 The Attorney-General and Mr. Joseph K. McCammon, contra.
79 MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the
court.
80 This case is in some respects supplemental to that of United States v. Union
Pacific Railroad Co., 91 U. S. 72. That was a suit brought in the Court of
Claims, by the company, to recover one-half of the compensation due to it for services rendered to the government between the dates of February, 1871, and
February, 1874, against which claim the United States set up a counter-claim
for the interest which it had paid on the subsidy bonds advanced to the
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
8/32
company. This court held that, by the terms of the acts of Congress granting
said subsidies, the company was not required to pay the interest on said bonds
until the maturity of the principal thereof; and therefore the counter-claim of
the government was overruled. The present case arises upon a like suit brought
by the company in the Court of Claims for the recovery of one-half of the
compensation due to it for services rendered to the government during the
remainder of the year 1874 and the whole of the year 1875, including certainservices performed prior to 1874, not included in the first suit.
81 The general history of the legislation of Congress in reference to the Union
Pacific Railroad Company and the associated enterprises, and of the policy of
the government respecting the same, is fully stated in our opinion in the former
case, and need not be repeated here. We shall only advert to the several acts,
and to the proceedings and negotiations which have taken place between the
parties, so far as may be necessary to an understanding of the specific questionswhich are raised in this suit. The facts are fully set forth by the Court of Claims
in its findings. Three principal questions are raised by the acts of Congress and
the facts found by the court, which it is necessary for us to determine.
82 First , When was the road completed?
83 Secondly, What is included in net earnings?
84 Thirdly, How and under what conditions are they to be paid?
85 I. First, as to the completion of the road.
86 In one sense, a railroad is never completed. There is never, or hardly ever, a
time when something more cannot be done, and is not done, to render the most
perfect road more complete than it was before. This fact is well exemplified bythe history of the early railroads of the country. At first, many of them were
constructed with a flat rail, or iron bar, laid on wooden string-pieces, resulting
in what was known, in former times, as snake-heads—the bars becoming loose,
and curving up in such a manner as to be caught by the cars, and forced through
the floors amongst the passengers. Then came the T rail; and finally the H rail,
which itself passed through many successive improvements. Finally, steel rails
in the place of iron rails have been adopted as the most perfect, durable, safe,
and economical rails on extensive lines of road. Bridges were first made of wood, then of stone, then of stone and iron. Grades originally crossed, and, in
most cases, do still cross, highways and other roads on the same level. The
most improved plan is to have them, by means of bridges, pass over, or under,
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
9/32
intersecting roads. A single track is all that is deemed necessary to begin with;
but now, no railroad of any pretensions is considered perfect until it has at least
a double track. Depots and station-houses are at first mere sheds, which are
deemed sufficient to answer the purpose of business. These are succeeded, as
the means of the company admit, by commodious station and freight houses, of
permanent and ornamental structure. And so the process of improvement goes
on; so that it is often a nice question to determine what is meant by a complete,first-class railroad; and if a question of right or obligation between parties
depends upon the completion of such a structure, courts are obliged to spell out,
from the circumstances of the case, and the language and acts of the parties,
what they mean when they use such terms.
87 In the present case, we have for our guidance several clauses in the charter of
the Union Pacific Railroad Company (the act of 1862), in which the terms
referred to are used, as well as the acts of the parties in reference thereto. Oneof these clauses is in the fourth section of the act, which contains an
engagement on the part of the government to grant certain sections of land to
the company on the completion of a certain number of miles of its road. The
third section having granted to the company every alternate section of the
public land, designated by odd numbers, to the amount of five alternate sections
per mile on each side of the railroad, on the line thereof, and within the limits of
ten miles, not otherwise disposed of by the United States, the fourth section
proceeds as follows:—— 'SECT. 4. That whenever said company shall havecompleted forty consecutive miles of any portion of said railroad and telegraph
line, ready for the service contemplated by this act, and supplied with all
necessary drains, culverts, viaducts, crossings, sidings, bridges, turnouts,
watering-places, depots, equipments, furniture, and all other appurtenances of a
first-class railroad, the rails and all the other iron used in the construction and
equipment of said road to be American manufacture of the best quality, the
President of the United States shall appoint three commissioners to examine the
same and report to him in relation thereto; and if it shall appear to him that fortyconsecutive miles of said railroad and telegraph line have been completed and
equipped in all respects as required by this act, then, upon certificate of said
commissioners to that effect, patents shall issue conveying the right and title to
said lands to said company, on each side of the road as far as the same is
completed, to the amount aforesaid; and patents shall in like manner issue as
each forty miles of said railroad and telegraph line are completed, upon
certificate of said commissioners. . . . Provided, however , that no such
commissioners shall be appointed by the President of the United States unlessthere shall be presented to him a statement, verified on oath by the president of
said company, that such forty miles have been completed in the manner
required by this act, and setting forth with certainty the points where such forty
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
10/32
miles begin and where the same end, which oath shall be taken before a judge
of a court of record.'
88 By the act of 1864 (13 Stat. 356), the amount and extent of the grant is
doubled.
89 Again, by the fifth section of the act of 1862 it is enacted as follows:——
90 'SECT. 5. That, for the purposes herein mentioned, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall, upon the certificate in writing of said commissioners of the
completion and equipment of forty consecutive miles of said railroad and
telegraph, in accordance with the provisions of this act, issue to said company
bonds of the United States of $1,000 each, payable in thirty years after date,
bearing six per centum per annum interest, . . . to the amount of sixteen of said bonds per mile for each section of forty miles, and to secure the repayment to
the United States, as hereinafter provided, of the amount of said bonds so
issued and delivered to said company, together with all interest thereon which
shall have been paid by the United States, the issue of said bonds and delivery
to the company shall ipso facto constitute a first mortgage on the whole line of
the railroad and telegraph, together with the rolling-stock, fixtures, and property
of every kind and description, and in consideration of which said bonds may be
issued.'
91 By the eleventh section the amount of bonds granted was to be $48,000 per
mile for one hundred and fifty miles through the Rocky Mountains, and for the
same distance including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and $32,000 per mile
between those points; and by the act of 1864 the completed sections were
reduced to twenty miles instead of forty.
92 By the sixth section of the act it is further enacted as follows:——
93 'SECT. 6. That the grants aforesaid are made upon condition that said company
shall pay said bonds at maturity, and shall keep said railroad and telegraph line
in repair and use, and shall at all times transmit despatches over said telegraph
line, and transport mails, troops and munitions of war, supplies and public
stores, upon said railroad for the government whenever required to do so by any
department thereof, and that the government shall at all times have the
preference in the use of the same for all the purposes aforesaid (at fair andreasonable rates of compensation, not to exceed the amounts paid by private
parties for the same kind of service), and all compensation for services
rendered for the government shall be applied to the payment of said bonds and
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
11/32
interest until the whole amount is fully paid. Said company may also pay the
United States, wholly or in part, in the same or other bonds, treasury notes, or
other evidences of debt against the United States, to be allowed at par, and after
said road is completed, until said bonds and interest are paid, at least five per
centum of the net earnings of said road shall also be annually applied to the
payment thereof .'
94 Reading these sections together, it seems hardly possible to conceive that the
word 'completed,' in the last clause of the sixth section, has any other or
different meaning from that which it has in the fourth and fifth sections; or that
the five per cent of the net earnings should not be demandable by the
government as soon as the whole line was completed in the same manner in
which any forty [or twenty] miles was to be completed in order to entitle the
company to bonds. This conclusion is so obvious and self-evident that it hardly
needs a word of argument to maintain it.
95 Now, the findings of fact show that the company began to claim the subsidy of
lands and bonds for completed sections of the railroad and telegraph line in
June, 1866; and from that time forward made similar successive applications
nearly or quite every month, tendering the affidavit of the president of the
company as to the completion of the several sections, as required by the act.
The first of these affidavits was made on the 25th of June, 1866, and was in the
words following:——
96 'John A. Dix, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, that he is president of the
Union Pacific Railroad Company, and in pursuance of the requirements of sect.
4 of the act of Congress approved July 1, 1862, entitled 'An Act to aid in the
construction of the railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the
Pacific Ocean,' &c., he now states, under oath, that one hundred and five
consecutive miles of said railroad, beginning at Omaha and ending at a point
one hundred and five miles westward thereof, on the line designated by themaps of said company on file in the Department of the Interior, have been
completed and equipped in all respects as required by the act referred to, as he
is informed by the engineer charged with the construction of said line, and as
he verily believes to be true; and he further states, under oath, that one hundred
and five miles of telegraph have been completed for the said one hundred and
five consecutive miles, as he is also advised by the engineer in charge.
97 'JOHN A. DIX, President .
98 'Sworn to, June 25, 1866.'
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
12/32
99 The last affidavit, relating to the completion of the last section of the road (and
indeed extending some fifty miles beyond the point of division finally agreed
upon between the Union and Central Pacific Railroad Companies), was made
on the 13th of May, 1869, and was in the words following:——
100 'Oliver Ames, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith that he is president of the
Union Pacific Railroad. And in pursuance of the requirements of sect. 4 of theact of Congress approved July 1, 1862, entitled 'An Act to aid in the
construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the
Pacific Ocean,' &c., he now states, under oath, that another section of eighty-
six miles, commencing at 1,000 mile and ending at 1,086 mile-post, was
completed on the tenth day of May, 1869, making in all 1,086 consecutive
miles of said road, beginning at the initial point on section 10, opposite western
boundary of the State of Iowa, as fixed by the President of the United States,
and ending at a point 1,086 miles westward therefrom on the line designated bythe maps of said company on file in the Department of the Interior, that have
been completed and equipped in all respects as required by the act referred to,
as he is informed by the engineer charged with the construction of said line,
and as he verily believes to be true. And he further states, under oath, that 1,086
miles of telegraph have been completed for the said 1,086 consecutive miles, as
he is also advised by the engineer in charge.
101 'OLIVER AMES,
102 ' President Union Pacific Railroad Company.
103 'Sworn to, May 13, 1869.'
104 The Court of Claims finds as a matter of fact that 'on the 10th of May, 1869, the
last rail of the claimant's road was laid, and about a week afterwards the roadwas opened over the entire length to public use for the transportation of
passengers and freight, and for the service of the government; and this service
was from that time forward performed continuously.'
105 It further found that on the 23d of December, 1865, the President of the United
States, under the authority of sect. 4 of the said act of July 1, 1862, appointed
commissioners to examine and report upon the first section of forty miles of
said road; and some time prior to April 30, 1866, he appointed other commissioners to examine and report upon the second section of twenty-five
miles of said road; and after the making of each of the foregoing affidavits, he
appointed other commissioners to examine the sections of the road as
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
13/32
successively completed, and report to him in relation thereto. The reports of the
commissioners so appointed were made in the first instance to the Secretary of
the Interior, who transmitted them to the President, who approved the
recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior by writing his approval
thereon. The following is the first letter of the said secretary, with the
President's indorsement thereon:——
106 'DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
107 WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 24, 1866.
108 'SIR,—I have the honor to submit herewith enclosed, for your action, the report
of the commissioners appointed by you on the 23d December, 1865, to examine
the first section of forty miles of the Union Pacific Railroad, extending westfrom the city of Omaha, Territory of Nebraska. The company authorized to
build this road having, as shown in the report of the commissioners, obligated
itself to remedy, within a reasonable time, the deficiencies in the construction of
said section, I respectfully recommend that the same be accepted, and proper
steps be ordered for the issue of the bonds and land-grants due the company
agreeably to law.
109 'I am, sir, with much respect, your obedient servant,
110 'JAS. HARLAN, Secretary.
111 'THE PRESIDENT.'
112 'EXECUTIVE MANSION, Jan. 24, 1866.
113 'The within recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior are approved, and
the Secretary of the Treasury and himself are hereby directed to carry the same
into effect.
114 'ANDREW JOHNSON.'
115 Similar reports were made by the Secretary of the Interior, as the successive
sections were completed and reported on by the commissioners, down to andincluding the ninth day of February, 1869, and were severally approved by the
President; and the company received the subsidy bonds of the government in
accordance therewith.
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
14/32
116 As it appeared by the reports of some of the commissioners that the several
sections of road were not, and could not, under the circumstances be, fully
completed up to the ultimate standard of a first-class railroad, though they
might be, and actually were, completed, section by section, so as to admit of
transportation and travel over the same, the railroad company, on the 12th of
February, 1869, being thereto required by the Attorney-General of the United
States, as a guaranty for the ultimate full completion and equipment of the road,executed an agreement of the last-mentioned date to deposit in the Treasury
Department their own first-mortgage bonds (which by the act of July 2, 1864,
they had been authorized to issue, and which were to be preferred to the lien of
the United States) to the amount of $3,000,000, to be held by the government
as security for the completion of the road according to the provisions of the
statutes in that behalf, and until the President, on a proper examination of the
same, should be satisfied that it was so completed. At the same time, the
company also agreed, by way of further security, to leave their land-grants withthe government, without taking out patents for the same, until the President
should be satisfied as aforesaid,—or pro tanto to such extent as he might not be
satisfied.
117 On the 10th of April, 1869, a joint resolution was passed by Congress, by
which, amongst other things, it was declared that the common terminus of the
Union Pacific and the Central Pacific railroads should be at or near Ogden. And
that the President was thereby authorized to appoint a board of eminentcitizens, not exceeding five in number, to examine and report upon the
condition of the two roads (the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific), and what
sum, if any, would be required to complete each of them. And the President
was further authorized and required to withhold from them an amount of
subsidy bonds sufficient to secure the full completion of the roads as first-class
roads, or to receive an equal amount of the first-mortgage bonds of the
companies. A board of five eminent citizens was appointed under this
resolution in the month of August following.
118 In the mean time, two additional reports were made by the Secretary of the
Interior to the President, one on the 27th of May, 1869, and the other on the
15th of July, 1869, in each case recommending the acceptance of the sections
referred to therein, and also recommending the issue of bonds therefor, in
accordance with the agreement aforesaid, to the effect that the company should
deposit its first-mortgage bonds with the Secretary of the Treasury to such
amount as might be deemed necessary to secure the ultimate completion of theroad.
119 The last of these reports, with the President's indorsement thereon, is in the
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
15/32
words following, to wit:——
120 'DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
121 WASHINGTON, D. C., July 15, 1869.
122 'Sir,—I have the honor to transmit herewith, for your action, five reports, dated
the 9th ultimo, of the commissioners, Messrs. Gouverneur K. Warren and
James F. Wilson; also the report of Isaac N. Morris, the other commissioner,
dated May 28, 1869, appointed by you to examine and report upon a section of
85 88/100 miles of the road and telegraph line, constructed by the Union Pacific
Railroad Company, commencing on the road of said company at the 1,000th
mile-post west from Omaha and terminating at the 1,085 88/100 mile-post.
123 'The majority of said commissioners, in their report, represent the said section
of 85 88/100 miles ready for present service, and completed and equipped as a
first-class railroad, and that the telegraph line is completed for the same
distance; and as the company have paid the per diem and mileage due them
under the twenty-first section of the act of Congress approved July 27, 1866, on
account of their examination of said section of road and telegraph line, I
therefore respectfully recommend the acceptance of the same and the issue of
bonds and of patents for land due on account of said section, agreeably to theact approved July 1, 1862, entitled 'An Act to aid in the construction of a
railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to
secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other
purposes,' and the acts amendatory thereof. Said bonds and patents to be issued
to the Union Pacific Railroad Company on account of the work from said
1,000th mile-post to the 'common terminus of the Union Pacific and Central
Pacific Railroads,' 'at or near Ogden;' and the bonds and patents on account of
said work from said common terminus to Promontory Summit to be issued to
such company as the proper authority, after full investigation of the respective
claims of the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Central Pacific Railroad
Company of California shall determine to be thereunto lawfully entitled:
Provided, however , that no bonds or patents shall in any event be issued until
such security shall be deposited with the Secretary of the Treasury necessary to
secure the ultimate completion of the road, agreeably to the acts mentioned in
my letter to you of the 27th of May last.
124 'I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
125 'J. D. COX, Secretary.
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
16/32
126'THE PRESIDENT.'
127 'EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 15, 1869.
128 'The within recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior are approved, and
the Secretary of the Treasury and himself are hereby directed to carry the same
into effect.
129 'U. S. GRANT.'
130 It is found by the Court of Claims that on the 22d of July, 1869, in partial
performance of this last order of the President, $640,000 of subsidy bonds were
issued to the company, being the subsidy for the section of twenty miles
extending from the 1,000th to the 1,020th mile from Omaha, the subsidy bondson all the previous sections having been received by the company before that
time.
131 As before stated, in August, 1869, the President, in accordance with the joint
resolution of April 10, 1869, appointed a board of five eminent citizens, to
examine and report upon the condition of the road, and what sum would be
required to complete it as a first-class railroad. This board made a detailed
examination, and on the 30th of October, 1869, made an elaborate report,specifying a number of particular things at various points, such as ballasting,
embankment, masonry, trestle-work, &c., which required perfecting to put the
road in first-class condition; estimating the aggregate expense of such
improvements on the whole line from Omaha to Ogden at $1,586,100. They
conclude their report as follows: 'This great line, the value of which to the
country is inestimable, and in which every citizen should feel a pride, has been
built in about half the time allowed by Congress, and is now a good and
reliable means of communication between Omaha and Sacramento, wellequipped, and fully prepared to carry passengers and freight with safety and
despatch, comparing in this respect favorably with a majority of the first-class
roads in the United States.'
132 This report being made and accepted, on the 3d of November, 1869, the
Secretary of the Interior issued directions to the Commissioner of the General
Land-Office to commence patenting lands to the companies, and to issue
patents for one half of the lands which they were to receive,—the patents for the other half to be suspended until further directions, in addition to the bonds
retained, as security for the completion of the roads in the matters reported
deficient or not up to the standard by the said committee.
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
17/32
133 Up to the 6th of November, 1869, the point at which the Union Pacific and
Central Pacific roads should meet was not settled; but assuming that the former
would go no further west than Ogden, 1,033 68/100 miles from Omaha, the
Secretary of the Treasury on that day ordered that bonds at the rate of $32,000
per mile for the distance of 13 68/100 miles from the 1,020th mile-post to
Ogden should be issued, but ordered that the register of the treasury should
hold $323,488 thereof as security for the over-issue of first-mortgage bonds bythe company, and deliver the balance to it. The reason of withholding these
bonds was, that the company, having been authorized by the act of July 2,
1864, supplementary to its charter, to issue the same amount of first-mortgage
bonds as it was entitled to receive from the government, and which was
accorded a priority over the lien of the government bonds, and having actually
constructed the road fifty-three miles west of Ogden, had issued a larger
amount of its own bonds than the amount of subsidy to which it was entitled as
the point of division between its road and that of the Central Pacific was finallysettled. By a subsequent arrangement with the Central Pacific Railroad
Company, the point of junction between the two roads was fixed at a point five
miles west of Ogden, which entitled the Union Pacific Company to bonds for
such five additional miles, amounting to $160,000, which it received in July,
1870, making the total amount of subsidy bonds which it was entitled to, and
did receive, the sum of $27,235,760.
134 It thus appears that prior to the sixth day of November, 1869, the entire road of the company had, in separate sections, been reported by it, under the oath of its
president, as being completed and furnished as a first-class railroad, in
accordance with the requirements of the act, and that upon the strength of these
representations, and the corresponding reports of the commissioners appointed
to examine the several sections, it had been accepted by the President; and that
the company, with the exception of the last $160,000 of bonds, the claim to
which arose from a mutual arrangement between the two companies, had
received its entire subsidy of government bonds; and had received an order for the issuing of patents for its grant of public lands to the extent of one half
thereof; the patents for the other half being suspended, by virtue of the
agreement made in April, 1869, as security for the more perfect completion of
certain parts of the work.
135 It is urged that the acceptance of the road by the President up to this period was
only provisional, and not final. We cannot perceive that this makes any
difference. It was an acceptance by which the company was enabled to receiveits subsidy of government bonds; and was sought by it in order that it might
obtain them.
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
18/32
136 It seems to us unnecessary to look further, or to review the subsequent
proceedings which took place between the President and the company, in
reference to the fulfilment of the conditions by the latter, on which the issue of
the patents for the remaining lands depended. It appears that another
commission was appointed to examine the road in 1874, and that, on their
report, the President was satisfied that all the imperfections, as a security for
the removal of which any patents had been suspended, were removed. The
company insists that this was the period which should be taken for the
completion of the road in reference to the payment of five per cent of its net
earnings,—a period five years after it had reported the last section completed
according to the act of Congress, and after the President, by virtue of the
agreement aforesaid, had consented to accept it as completed for the purpose of
enabling the company to draw its subsidy of government bonds, and after it had
received said bonds.
137 Can a stronger case of estoppel than this well be presented? The plea that the
government still retained a portion of the public lands which the company was
to receive, as security for the supply of certain deficiencies in the road, cannot
avail to diminish the strength of the estoppel. This was done by the voluntary
agreement of the company itself. And as, by making this concession, it
succeeded in obtaining the formal acceptance of its road for the sake of the
benefit to accrue therefrom, to wit, the procurement of the subsidy bonds, the
company ought to be willing to bear the burden of such acceptance, to wit, the payment annually of five per cent of the net earnings of the road on account of
the bonds. It would be an unfair construction of the acts of the parties under the
law, to hold that the road was completed for one purpose and not for the other.
We think, therefore, that the Court of Claims was right in deciding that the road
was completed on the sixth day of November, 1869, so far as the duty of the
company to account for five per cent of its net earnings is concerned.
138 II. The question next arising is, What are the 'net earnings' for five per cent of
which the company became liable to account, and in what manner are they
payable?
139 In the first place, they are the 'net earnings of the road;' that is, the net earnings
of the road as a railroad, including the telegraph. They have nothing to do with
the income or profits of the company as a holder of public lands. The proceeds
of this source of income are no part of the earnings of the road. These earnings,however, must be regarded as embracing all the earnings and income derived
by the company from the railroad proper, and all the appendages and
appurtenances thereof, including its ferry and bridge at Omaha, its cars, and all
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
19/32
its property and apparatus legitimately connected with its railroad.
140 In the present case, but little difficulty is presented in determining what are the
proper earnings of the road, except in one particular. The company insists that
the compensation accruing to it for services performed for the government,
under the sixth section of the act of 1862, should not be estimated amongst the
earnings of the road, in taking an account of net earnings upon which tocalculate the five per cent in question. That compensation is not receivable by
the company,—does not come into its hands,—at least was not receivable by it
according to the act of 1862, but was directed by the sixth section to be applied
to the payment of the subsidy bonds. After giving this direction, the section
proceeds to add, that after the road is completed, 'until said bonds and interest
are paid, five per centum of the net earnings of said road shall also be annually
applied to the payment thereof.' It is contended that the net earnings here
referred to are intended to be exclusive of said compensation for governmentservice, no part of which the company was to receive. It must be admitted that
there is some force in this view. But the majority of the court is of opinion that
the plain letter of the statute cannot be thus varied by construction. The
compensation accruing by means of services performed for the government is
unquestionably earnings of the road and telegraph; and as there are no words in
the act which go to show any intention to except this portion of earnings from
the other earnings of the road in estimating the amount of net earnings, the
conclusion arrived at is, that no such exception can be made. The fact that by asubsequent law the company is allowed to receive in money one-half of the
compensation referred to, removes to a great extent the practical difficulties that
have been suggested in this behalf.
141 There is another item in the table of earnings set forth in the eighteenth finding
of the Court of Claims which may require consideration. We refer to the
seventh item, entitled 'company freight.' If this means freight for the
transportation of the company's own property over its own road, it ought not to be put down as a receipt, unless the same amount is also embraced amongst the
expenses on the other side of the account. How this fact may be we have not
before us the means of knowing. The evidence which the Court of Claims has
in its possession will enable it to determine this matter. We merely decide that
if the item appears only as a receipt or earning, and is of the character we have
supposed, it ought to be excluded from the account.
142 Having considered the question of receipts or earnings, the next thing in order is the expenditures which are properly chargeable against the gross earning in
order to arrive at the 'net earnings,' as this expression is to be understood within
the meaning of the act. As a general proposition, net earnings are the excess of
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
20/32
the gross earnings over the expenditures defrayed in producing them, aside
from, and exclusive of, the expenditure of capital laid out in constructing and
equipping the works themselves. It may often be difficult to draw a precise line
between expenditures for construction, and the ordinary expenses incident to
operating and maintaining the road and works of a railroad company.
Theoretically, the expenses chargeable to earnings include the general expenses
of keeping up the organization of the company, and all expenses incurred inoperating the works and keeping them in good condition and repair; whilst
expenses chargeable to capital include those which are incurred in the original
construction of the works, and in the subsequent enlargement and improvement
thereof. With regard to the last-mentioned class of expenditures, however,
namely, those which are incurred in enlarging and improving the works, a
difference of practice prevails amongst railroad companies. Some charge to
construction account every item of expense, and every part and portion of every
item, which goes to make the road, or any of its appurtenances or equipments, better than they were before; whilst others charge to ordinary expense account,
and against earnings, whatever is taken for these purposes from the earnings,
and is not raised upon bonds or issues of stock. The latter method is deemed the
most conservative and beneficial for the company, and operates as a restraint
against injudicious dividends and the accumulation of a heavy indebtedness.
The temptation is, to make expenses appear as small as possible, so as to have a
large apparent surplus to divide. But it is not regarded as the wisest and most
prudent method. The question is one of policy, which is usually left to thediscretion of the directors. There is but little danger that any board will cause a
very large or undue portion of their earnings to be absorbed in permanent
improvements. The practice will only extend to those which may be required
from time to time by the gradual increase of the company's traffic, the despatch
of business, the public accommodation, and the general permanency and
completeness of the works. When any important improvement is needed, such
as an additional tract, or any other matter which involves a large outlay of
money, the owners of the road will hardly forego the entire suspension of
dividends in order to raise the requisite funds for those purposes; but will rather
take the ordinary course of issuing bonds or additional stock. But for making all
ordinary improvements, as well as repairs, it is better for the stockholders, and
all those who are interested in the prosperity of the enterprise, that a portion of
the earnings should be employed. We think that the true interest of the
government, in this case, is the same as that of the stockholders; and will be
subserved by encouraging a liberal application of the earnings to the
improvement of the words. It is better for the ultimate security of the
government in reference to the payment of its loan, as well as for the service
which it may require in the transportation of its property and mails, that a
hundred dollars should be spent in improving the works, than that it should
receive five dollars towards the payment of its subsidy. If the five per cent of
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
21/32
net earnings, demandable from the company, amounted to a new indebtedness,
not due before, like a rent accruing upon a lease, a more rigid rule might be
insisted on. But it is not so; the amount of the indebtedness is fixed and
unchangeable. The amount of the five per cent and its receipt at one time or
another is simply a question of earlier or later payment of a debt already fixed
in amount. If the employment of any earnings of the road in making
improvements lessens the amount of net earnings, the government loses nothingthereby. The only result is, that a less amount is presently paid on its debt;
whilst the general security for the whole debt is largely increased.
143 We are disposed to agree, therefore, with the judge who delivered the
concurring opinion in the court below, that the twenty-seventh item of
expenditure, as stated in the table of expenses in the eighteenth finding, entitled
'expenditures for station buildings, shops, &c.,' is a charge that may properly be
made against earnings, since, as the fact is, such expenditures were actually paid therefrom, and were not carried to capital account. Should the company
ever attempt to make a stock or bond dividend in consideration of such
expenditure, the government would be entitled to demand its due proportion
thereof by way of payment on account of its debt. But as long as such
expenditures are fairly and in good faith charged to account of earnings, we see
no good reason for disallowing the charge.
144 Of course, the allowance of this item will supersede the deduction of fifteen per cent from the seventh item of earnings; which item, however, is subject to the
observations that have already been made upon it.
145 Expenses of the same kind as those included in item 27, which are contained in
other items, and were disallowed by the Court of Claims, are to be allowed in
like manner as those in item 27, including the expenses for issuing bonds.
146 We agree with the Court of Claims in its rejection of the expenditures contained
in items 17 to 30 in the table referred to, excepting item 27. All payments of
interest on the bonded indebtedness of the company should be charged to
capital interest account, and not to current expenditures. Though payable out of
earnings before any dividend can be made to stockholders, they cannot
beducted for the purpose of ascertaining the 'net earnings' of the road, as that
term is to be understood in the sixth section of the act. The bonded debt
incurred for the purpose of construction and equipment is but another form of
capital, analogous to preferred stock; and the interest accruing thereon is in the
nature of a dividend on such capital. It has nothing to do with, and cannot
affect, the amount of the net earnings of the road.
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
22/32
147 So the expenses of land and town-lot departments, and taxes on lands and town
lots, are expenses properly belonging to the land department of the company's
property. They are entirely distinct from its expenses as a railroad company;
and form no proper charge, in the accounts, against the earnings of the road.
148 The other items disallowed by the court require no particular remark. Their
irrelevancy in the account of net earnings is obvious.
149 III. We have still to consider the manner in which, and the conditions subject to
which, the five per cent of net earnings is payable and demandable.
150 We have seen that by the fifth section of the act of 1862 the issue to the
company of the subsidy bonds was to constitute a first mortgage on the whole
line of the railroad and telegraph, together with the rolling-stock, fixtures, and property of every kind and description, [and]in consideration of which said
bonds should be issued. By the act of July 2, 1864, this priority of the
government claim was relinquished in favor of a certain amount of first-
mortgage bonds which, by that act, the company was authorized to issue. The
provision referred to is contained in the tenth section of the act of 1864, which
is as follows:——
151 'SECT. 10. And be it further enacted, that sect. 5 of said act [of July 1, 1862] beso modified and amended that the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the
Central Pacific Railroad Company, and any other company authorized to
participate in the construction of said road, may, on the completion of each
section of said road, as provided in this act and the act to which this act is an
amendment, issue their first-mortgage bonds on their respective railroad and
telegraph lines to an amount not exceeding the amount of the bonds of the
United States, and of even tenor and date, time of maturity, rate and character
of interest, with the bonds authorized to be issued to said railroad companiesrespectively. And the lien of the United States bonds shall be subordinate to
that of the bonds of any or either of said companies hereby authorized to be
issued on their respective roads, property, and equipments, except as to the
provisions of the sixth section of the act to which this act is an amendment,
relating to the transmission of despatches and the transportation of mails,
troops, munitions of war, supplies, and public stores for the government of the
United States.'
152 It is found by the Court of Claims that the Union Pacific Railroad Company did
issue its first-mortgage bonds as authorized by this section, and to the full
amount allowed thereby. The company contends that the interest of these
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
23/32
bonds, if not its other interest, should be charged as an expenditure against the
earnings of the road in taking an account of its net earnings, which would
reduce the net earnings of each year by the amount of said interest. We have
already expressed an opinion that this claim cannot be sustained. The interest
on these bonds do not, any more than the interest of any other bonds of the
company, form any proper portion of the expenditures of the road to be
considered in estimating the net earnings mentioned in sect. 6 of the act of 1862.
153 But whilst we decide against the company on this point, we are clearly of
opinion that the annual interest accruing on these particular bonds are to be first
paid out of the net earnings, before the government can demand its five per cent
thereof. We conceive this to be the legitimate effect of the concession by the
government of its priority. It can hardly be pretended that, notwithstanding this
concession, the five per cent to be applied in payment of the government bondsis to be first paid. It seems to us an absurdity to say that these bonds are entitled
to a priority, but that the government must be first paid. This would be to grant
a priority, and, in the same breath, to take it back again. It will not do to say that
both must be paid, if there is not enough to pay both. It is a question between
two parties having a claim against a common fund, and one of them having a
priority over the other.
154 It may, perhaps, be urged that the first-mortgage bondholders have no lien onthe net earnings. But it has the same lien that the government has. Both liens
are coextensive with the whole property of the company, so far at least as
relates to the railroad and telegraph lines and their equipment and all property
appurtenant thereto. There is a direction, it is true, that if the company makes
net earnings, it shall pay five per cent thereof on its debt to the government. But
that direction was contained in the act of 1862; the authority to issue the first-
mortgage bonds, and the concession of priority thereto, was given two years
afterwards, and is the controlling enactment. It cannot be supposed, after thistransaction, that the company is bound to pay the government first, and to allow
the interest on the first-mortgage bonds to go unpaid, or, in order to pay it, to go
out in the money market and make a new loan. Such could never have been the
intention of the law. Not to pay the interest on the first mortgage would expose
the road and works to be seized and sold,—a result, certainly, that could not be
to the interest of the government, when we consider that its entire debt is
postponed to the first mortgage, and would be liable to be lost by such a
proceeding. Borrowing money to pay the interest (if it could be borrowed)would only be to put off the evil day.
155 The interest accruing on the first mortgage is as much payable out of the net
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
24/32
earnings as the five per cent payable to government is. It is the proper fund out
of which to pay both; and if but one can be paid, the former has the precedence;
or else the whole government debt might be paid to the exclusion of the first
mortgage, which is admitted to have the priority. Such a result would be
manifestly absurd.
156 The truth is, that the provision for paying five per cent of the net earnings onthe subsidy debt was a provision for payment out of a particular fund. If by
voluntary agreement on the part of the government a portion of that fund is
appropriated to another purpose (which we think it is), then the government is
entitled to go against the balance only. The provision created no new obligation
or indebtedness, but only entitled the government to anticipate part payment of
a fixed indebtedness out of a particular fund, if there should be such a fund. If
the fund should not arise, or should be exhausted by claims to which the
government gave priority over its own claim, there would clearly be nothing for the government to demand.
157 It is not like the case of two mortgages, one prior to the other, and both having
claims for interest coming due. In such case, if both claims are not paid, the one
which is not paid becomes a cause of action, and may be put in suit. Here, the
claim of the government is on the fund alone. If that is exhausted by its own
consent, no cause of action arises. There is simply nothing left of the fund to
which it has a right to resort.
158 The government, however, may contend that if there is not a sufficient surplus
of net earnings in one year to pay the five per cent due for that year, it may be
carried over to a succeeding year, and taken out of the surplus thereof. We do
not think that this position is more tenable than the other. Each year is to stand
by itself. If there is a deficit in any year instead of net earnings, such deficit
cannot be carried over into the next year's accounts by the company; and if
there are net earnings which are absorbed by the interest due on the firstmortgage, the claim of five per cent cannot be carried over into the next year by
the government. The one is no more a debt than the other is a credit. The
statute makes the application an annual one. If the year produces net earnings
sufficient for the purpose, the government gets its five per cent; if it does not
produce sufficient, the government does not get its five per cent; and there the
account ends for that year. It was never intended that this account should be
carried on from one year to another.
159 This seems to us to be the fair and reasonable construction of the statutes, and
one that does no injustice to either of the parties. The object of Congress in all
of them was to extend a liberal hand in aid of the enterprise which the company
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
25/32
undertook to carry out, and not to exact, in addition to the amount of service
which the company was required to perform, the payment of any part of its loan
before maturity, except a small portion of the net earnings of the road which the
company would be presumed to have in its hands. So far as these were
otherwise disposed of by the government's own consent, the application to its
debt must be regarded as intended to be waived.
160 The fact that by the ninth section of the act of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. 525), the
Secretary of the Treasury is required to pay over in money to the companies
one-half of the compensation for the services performed by them for the United
States, has no bearing on the question now under consideration. The statutes out
of which this question arises were all passed long before, and are to be
construed as if the act of 1871 had never been passed.
161 We may add, in conclusion, that Congress, by the act passed May 7, 1878 (20Stat. 56), supplementary to the acts of 1862 and 1864, has expressly directed
that, in estimating the net earnings of the roads, the interest of the first-
mortgage bonds, as well as the current expenses, is to be deducted from the
gross earnings. Whilst this enactment cannot be invoked as furnishing any
decisive rule for the construction of the statutes under review, it at least shows
that Congress deems the interest of said first-mortgage bonds as fairly entitled
to priority of payment out of the earnings of the road, before the payment of any
portion thereof on the government debt. We think, therefore, that we are justified in supposing that our conclusion is in harmony with the views of the
legislature, as to the justice and right of the case.
162 The conclusions to which we have come on the whole case will require the
following modifications of the decree appealed from:——
163 First , In estimating the amount of gross earnings, no deduction will be made
from the earnings included in items 7 or 12, as set forth in the table contained in
the eighteenth finding of the Court of Claims, unless it be found that item 7,
entitled 'company freight,' is for transporting the company's own property on its
road, and is not balanced by being also contained among the expenditures. If
this be the case, then the whole of item 7 should be struck out.
164 Secondly, In estimating the amount of expenditures to be deducted from gross
earnings, the claimant should be credited with the expenditures contained initem 27 of the table of expenditures, and the other expenses which are
disallowed by the Court of Claims, except items 17 to 26 inclusive, and items
28, 29, and 30, which are properly disallowed.
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
26/32
165 Thirdly, If with these modifications it should be found that the net earnings, in
any one year, were not more than sufficient to pay the interest on the first-
mortgage bonds accruing in said year, then the company will not be decreed to
pay any portion of the said five per cent of net earnings for that year. But if the
net earnings were more than sufficient to pay said interest, the excess will be
subject, as far as it will go, to the payment of said five per cent; but the
company will not be decreed to pay any more than said excess.
166 The decree will be reversed with instructions to enter a decree in accordance
with this opinion; and it is
167 So ordered .
168 MR. JUSTICE STRONG, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN,dissenting.
169 I concur with the majority of the court in holding that the railroad was
completed, within the meaning of the sixth section of the act of 1862, on the
sixth day of November, 1869. I concur also in the definition of 'net earnings,' as
the term was used in that section. But the majority now express the opinion that
if the net earnings in any one year are not more than sufficient to pay the
interest on the first-mortgage bonds of the company in that year, the UnitedStates is not entitled to any portion of five per cent of those earnings for that
year, though, if they are more than sufficient to pay that interest, the excess or
surplus is subject, so far as it will go, to the payment of the five per cent. This is
substantially holding that the claim of the government to the annual payment of
five per cent of the company's net earnings, after the completion of the road, is
postponed to the annual interest on the first-mortgage bonds. To this I cannot
assent. It is, I think, based upon an entire misconstruction of the acts of
Congress which gave existence to the company, and to which alone we can
look for the contract between it and the government. A very few words will
indicate my opinion, and show the reasons upon which it rests. By the fifth
section of the act of 1862, the Secretary of the Treasury was required to issue to
the company bonds of the United States to an amount therein specified. The
bonds were to be issued as a loan, and the section provided as follows: 'And to
secure the repayment to the United States, as hereinafter provided, of the
amount of said bonds so issued and delivered to said company, together with all
interest thereon which shall have been paid by the United States, the issue of
said bonds and delivery to the company shall, ipso facto, constitute a first
mortgage on the whole line of the railroad and telegraph, together with the
rolling-stock, fixtures, and property of every kind and description, and in
consideration of which said bonds may be issued.' This clause describes the
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
27/32
lien, and the only lien, reserved by the United States. It covers the railroad and
telegraph, the rolling-stock and fixtures, and property of every kind and
description. It does not cover income from the property, either gross receipts or
net receipts derived from its use, while it remains in the possession of the
company and before any forfeiture for breach of the conditions of the
mortgage. A mortgage of a property is a very different thing from a mortgage of
its income. The mortgagor, so long as he remains in possession, or until actualentry by the mortgagee, may receive the rents and profits to his own use, and is
not accountable for them to the mortgagee. Fitchburg Cotton Manufactory
Corporation v. Melven et al., 15 Mass. 268; Boston Bank v. Reed et al., 8 Pick.
(Mass.) 459. Indeed, it is clear law that a mortgagee has no specific lien upon
the rents and profits of mortgaged premises until condition broken. The Bank of
Ogdensburgh v. Arnold and Others, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 38. I think it very apparent
that in the reservation of the lien Congress did not intend to interfere with or
assert rights over the earnings of the railroad, or to prevent their appropriationto the general uses of the company. They were not intended to be covered by
the lien, or embraced within it. And I am confirmed in this belief by the fact
that immediately following the clause in the fifth section describing the lien, a
right was reserved to the United States to take possession of the road on failure
of the company to redeem the bonds loaned.
170 Assuming that I am correct in this, I pass to the sixth section of the act, which
makes no reference to the lien, though it imposes duties upon the company. Itenacts that the grants aforesaid are made upon condition that said company
shall pay said bonds at maturity, and shall keep said railroad and telegraph in
repair and use, shall transmit despatches at all times over said telegraph line,
and transport mails, troops, &c., for the government when required, giving to
the government the preference in the use of the road and line for all the
purposes aforesaid. The section then declares that all compensation
(subsequently changed to one-half thereof) for services rendered for the
government shall be applied to the payment of the bonds and interest, so asaforesaid named, until the whole amount is fully paid. Then follows the clause
which the United States is seeking in this action to enforce. It is as follows:
'And after said road is completed, until said bonds and interest are paid, at least
five per centum of the net earnings of said road shall also be annually applied to
the payment thereof.' The grants referred to in this section, and declared to be
conditional, are probably those of the right of way and alternate sections of
land given previously in the preceding sections. They can hardly refer to the
loan of bonds. This, however, is not very material. While it is true that thesection refers to payment of the debt due to the United States, it contains no
allusion to the lien for the security of the debt reserved in the fifth section. And
it can hardly be pretended that performance of the duties thereby imposed upon
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
28/32
the company is secured by the statutory mortgage. The mortgage is not a
security for having the road and telegraph kept in order, nor for the
transmission of despatches, or the transportation for the government, nor for
priority of use by the government, nor for the application to the payment of the
bonds of half the compensation for services to the government. Nor is it any
more a security for the required payment of a percentage of the net earnings.
These duties are secured by the condition attached to the land grants, and by theimplied assumption of the company. They are entirely collateral to the
obligation and lien of the mortgage. They are not a part of it. It is no
uncommon thing that a creditor has several securities for one debt. He may
have a bond and a mortgage to secure its payment; he may have also a
promissory note, or an assignment of stock. Nobody would claim that in such a
case the note and the assignment are included in the lien of the mortgage.
171 Having thus shown, as I think, what the lien of the government was, what itcovered, and what it did not, I pass to the tenth section of the amending act of
1864, by which, as construed by a majority of the court, the claim of the United
States to a percentage annually of the net earnings of the road, is postponed to
the rights of what is called the first mortgage of the company. That section
authorized the company, and other companies, to issue their first-mortgage
bonds on the roads and telegraph lines to an amount not exceeding the bonds of
the United States, and of even tenor and date, time of maturity, rate and
character of interest, with the bonds authorized to be issued to them. It thendeclared thus: 'And the lien of the United States shall be subordinate to that of
the bonds of any or either of said companies hereby authorized to be issued on
their respective roads, property, and equipments, except as to the provisions of
the sixth section of the act to which this act is an amendment, relating to the
transmission of despatches, and the transportation of mails, troops, munitions of
war, supplies, and public stores for the government of the United States.'
172 The first mortgage thus authorized was less comprehensive than the statutorymortgage of the United States. It did not include the lands of the company, nor
any of its property, except the road and the telegraph line. It certainly did not
include the earnings of the company. What, then, was subordinated to it? I
think nothing but the lien of the United States bonds,—that lien which was
reserved in the fifth section of the act of 1862. This is the express language of
the section. Whatever right to the railroad and telegraph line the United States
had by virtue of its mortgage, that right was postponed to the mortgage bonds
authorized by this tenth section, and issued under it. Nothing else was postponed. Subordination of the lien of the United States to the company's first
mortgage could not have the effect of enlarging the operation and scope of that
mortgage and bringing additional subjects within it. Surely it did not make the
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
29/32
mortgage a lien upon any other property than that which the company was
authorized to mortgage. It did not make it a lien, either prior or subsequent,
upon the lands of the company, or the income or earnings of its road. And as I
think I have shown the duty of the company to apply annually five per cent of
its net earnings, after the completion of its road, to the payment of its debt to
the United States, was collateral to its other obligations,—a cumulative duty,
not embraced in the lien or mortgage reserved by the United States in the fifthsection of the act of 1862,—it cannot be affected by the tenth section of the act
of 1864. Whatever else was postponed, it was not.
173 It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the exception from the
subordinating clause of those provisions of the sixth section of the act of 1862,
relating to the transmission of despatches, and the transportation of mails,
troops, munitions of war, supplies, and public stores for the government of the
United States, implies that the other provisions of that section, or at least thefive per cent provision, were intended to be subordinated to the lien of the first-
mortgage company bonds. This supposed implication is the principal reason
urged in support of the position taken by a majority of the court. It is, however,
in my judgment, entirely unfounded. The purpose of the exception appears to
me to be very plain. As I have noticed, the section authorized the company to
issue their first-mortgage bonds upon the railroad and the telegraph line, and
enacted that the lien of the United States bonds should be subordinate to the
company's first-mortgage bonds. Subordinate, clearly, only in its effect uponthat which was covered by the company's mortgage, namely, the road and the
telegraph line. But if the company's mortgage was permitted to be without
exception the paramount lien upon the road and telegraph line, the right secured
to the United States by the sixth section of the act of 1862 to the transmission
of despatches, and transportation of the mails, &c., might be totally destroyed
by a foreclosure of the mortgage and a sale under it. To guard against this
possibility was evidently the sole purpose of the exception, and its necessity is
manifest. I repeat, if the company's authorized mortgage on the railroad and thetelegraph line were permitted to be, without restriction, a paramount lien, the
preferential right secured to the United States by the conditions of the sixth
section of the act of 1862—the right to the transmission of despatches and
transportation of mails, stores, munitions of war, &c., in preference to others—
would have been at the mercy of the company's mortgagees. That right of
priority Congress was not willing to endanger. The exception was introduced to
avert the danger of its loss. Congress, in effect, said to the company, 'Though
we agree that your mortgage shall be the first lien upon the road and thetelegraph line, yet no foreclosure of it, no taking possession under it, and no
sale shall interfere with the right of the United States to the transmission of
despatches and to transportation in preference to all others.' To save that right
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
30/32
------------
5. Fencing 72,763.20 956.50 595.44 ------------ ------------- ---
6. Snow sheds and fences 200,147.90 5,787.67 116,770.54 66,969.23
7. Express outfit 7,136.41 ---------- ----------- ----------- --------- ----------
8. Engineering 13,880.90 11,599.75 8,247.98 102.87 $2,810.17
the exception was necessary. It had reference solely to the operation of the
company's mortgage upon the road , upon which a preferential right to
transportation had been reserved, and to the telegraph line, along which
government despatches were first to be carried. I cannot believe it had any other
purpose or intent, much less that it was intended to operate as a grant, or to
postpone the other rights assured to the United States in the sixth section. The
implication that every duty in that section imposed upon the company, exceptthe one expressly mentioned, was intended to be subordinated to the lien of the
company's bonds is too unreasonable to be accepted, and it will not be claimed.
Yet such must be the extent of the implication, if the exception means what the
majority of the court think it means. If the duty of the company to apply to the
payment of its bonds a percentage of its net earnings annually after the
completion of its road is postponed to the rights of the first-mortgage
bondholders, so is the duty to apply one-half the compensation for services
rendered for the government, and so is the duty to keep the railroad andtelegraph line in repair, by parity of reason. Those rights of the government and
the right to the percentage of the earnings stand alike. They are all reserved by
the tenth section of the act of 1864.
174 My conclusion, therefore, is that nothing in the tenth section of the act of 1864
postpones the right of the government to recover five per cent of the net
earnings of the road before any thing is deducted from those earnings for either
principal or interest of the first-mortgage bonds of the company.
175 It may be that the construction of the acts of Congress for which I contend, if
adopted by the court, would not increase the amount recoverable by the United
States in the present suit, but it may have an important effect on future claims
against the company for the five per cent, and it has upon the claims of the
United States against the other companies to which the sixth section of the act
of 1862 was applicable.
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
31/32
9. Bridging 124,047.59 11,480.85
10. Car shops and sheds 12,938.08 6,661.86 23,234.63 1,020.26
11. Roadway and truck 64,426.30 31,885.19 16,550.09
12. Hotels 1,548.66
13. Tenements 15,759.26 40,775.37 403.60
14. Coal-sheds 2,905.70 11,006.63
15. Omaha depot buildings 7,821.07 37,255.16
16. Omaha general offices 14,977.95 6,896.46
17. Real estate 12,525.00
18. Laramie rolling-mill 16,550.33
19. Water-works 8,966.12
----------
$896,977.03 $183,906.95 $497,875.85 $156,038.10 $177,124.57 $2,810.17
LESS RECEIPTS AND
EXPENDITURES.
20. Equipment 111,430.40
21. Fencing 298.38
22. Roadway and track 5,626.82
$117,057.22 $298.38
Totals of item No. 27 $896,977.03 $66,849.73 $497,875.85 $155,739.72
,810.17
Items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are not in dispute $2.
Item 1, 'conducting transportation expenses,' is liable to be reduced by the
amounts shown in line 1 of the table below as expended for 'tenement-houses
and hotels,' and by the amounts shown in line 2 as expended for new station-
-
8/17/2019 Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 99 U.S. 402 (1879)
32/32
buildings; item 2, 'motive-power expenses,' is liable to be reduced by the
amounts shown in line 3 as expended for 'engine-equipment,' and by the
amounts shown in line 4 as expended for 'tanks and water-works;' item 3,
'maintenance of cars expenses,' is liable to be reduced by the amounts shown in
line 5 as expended for 'car-equipment;' and item 4, 'maintenance of way
expenses,' is liable to be reduced by the amounts shown in line 6 as expended
for the 'Laramie rolling-mills,' in case such several and respective outlays areregarded as not